California CPUC Form A is the formal Application pleading that any person or entity files with the California Public Utilities Commission under Rule 2.1 of the CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure to start a new proceeding, request authority, change rates, secure a certificate, or seek any other relief that requires a Commission decision. The form is not a fillable PDF; instead, it is a structured legal pleading that must follow the exact format set out in Article 2 of the Rules and be filed through the CPUC E-Filing System.
A defective Form A is one of the top reasons new matters stall at the CPUC Docket Office, which rejects roughly 15–20% of incoming applications on first submission for missing verifications, wrong categorization, or fee shortfalls. Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📑 What CPUC Form A is, who must file it, and the statute behind it
- 🗂️ Every document and data point you must gather before drafting
- ✍️ A line-by-line walkthrough of every required section under Rule 2.1
- 👥 Three full named-filer scenarios with side-by-side example entries
- ⚠️ The most common rejection traps and how to avoid them
What CPUC Form A Is and Who Must File It
CPUC Form A is the opening pleading that initiates a formal proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission, and it is governed primarily by Public Utilities Code §1701 et seq. and Rules 2.1 through 2.6 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Unlike a simple agency form, Form A is a tailored legal document that the filer drafts on pleading paper, signs under verification, and serves on every required party.
Any regulated utility, carrier, or person seeking Commission action must file Form A. That includes investor-owned electric and gas utilities like PG&E, SCE, and SoCalGas, as well as Class A–D water utilities, telecommunications carriers seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), passenger carriers regulated under the TCP program, and third-party intervenors seeking declaratory relief.
Federal law sometimes overlaps. A telecom CPCN may also implicate FCC Section 214 authority, and a wholesale energy contract may sit alongside FERC jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act. The CPUC’s Form A handles the California state side only, but the application must disclose any parallel federal filings.
A misconception filers carry into this form is that the CPUC offers a check-the-box template. It does not. The “form” is a pleading you build yourself using the structure mandated by Rule 2.1, which is why so many first-time filers stumble at the Docket Office window.
Before You Start: Documents and Information You Need
Before drafting the application, gather every supporting record. The CPUC requires these items to be either attached as exhibits or referenced inside the body of the pleading. A missing item triggers a Docket Office rejection notice within 5 business days under Rule 1.13.
- Legal name and California Secretary of State entity number. The Commission cross-checks the name against the California Secretary of State business search. A mismatch leads to a defective-caption rejection.
- Most recent audited balance sheet and income statement. Required for rate cases and financing applications under Rule 3.2. Without them the Energy or Water Division will not issue a proceeding number.
- Proposed categorization (ratesetting, adjudicatory, or quasi-legislative). Required by Rule 7.1. The wrong category derails the schedule and ex parte rules.
- Proposed schedule and need for hearing statement. Rule 2.1(c) demands this. Filers who skip it get a deficiency letter.
- Verification under penalty of perjury. Rule 1.11 requires an officer or authorized agent to verify the facts. Missing verifications are the single most common rejection reason.
- Filing fee. The current statutory fee is $75 under Public Utilities Code §1904.1. Rate cases and CPCNs may carry higher fees scaled to revenue impact.
- Notice of Availability (NOA) list. A complete service list of affected ratepayers, competitors, or local governments under Rule 2.3. Missing service triggers due-process challenges.
- Tariff sheets in legislative format. For rate or tariff applications, redlined and clean versions are required.
- Environmental information under CEQA. Required for projects with physical impacts under Pub. Res. Code §21000.
- Prepared written testimony. Rule 3.1 requires concurrent service of testimony for ratesetting matters.
If any item is missing, the Docket Office returns the application unfiled, the proceeding number is not assigned, and statutory deadlines (such as the 18-month §1701.5 ratesetting clock) do not begin to run.
Where to Get the Form and How to Access It
There is no downloadable “Form A” PDF on the CPUC website. Instead, the Commission publishes the format requirements inside the Rules of Practice and Procedure, and filers draft the pleading themselves on standard 8½ × 11 pleading paper with line numbers down the left margin. The CPUC Docket Office page hosts the current rules, the e-filing instructions, and the fee schedule.
Filers access the e-filing system through the E-Filing portal, which requires a registered account tied to a verified email and a California State Bar number for attorney filers. Pro se filers can register without a Bar number but must still verify their identity.
A nuance many first-time filers miss is that paper filing is no longer the default. Since the Commission’s 2020 e-filing modernization, paper applications are accepted only for confidential filings or when the filer obtains a hardship waiver under Rule 1.13(d).
A common misconception is that filers can email the application directly to an Administrative Law Judge. Direct email submissions are rejected; the only valid intake channel is the Docket Office EFS portal or, for waivered filings, hand delivery to 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.
Step-by-Step: How to Fill Out CPUC Form A Line by Line
The following walkthrough mirrors the order of the application as required by Rule 2.1. Every section below corresponds to a mandatory element of the pleading. Sample entries are italicized so you can tell them apart from instructions.
Caption Block (Top of Page 1)
The caption block sits at the very top of page one and tells the Commission who is filing and what relief they want. It must include the filer’s full legal name, the type of application, and a blank line where the Docket Office will stamp the proceeding number.
To complete it, type your legal entity name on the left, the words “BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA” centered above, and “Application of [Name] for [Relief Sought]” in the case caption.
A specific example: Application of Sunrise Water Company (U-123-W) for Authority to Increase Rates Charged for Water Service by $1,250,000 or 6.4% in Test Year 2027.
A nuance: if you hold a CPUC utility number (the U-number), it must follow your name in parentheses. Numbers are issued by the Commission and are searchable in the Utility ID lookup.
A common mistake on this field is leaving the proceeding number line blank without the placeholder “Application No. __-__-___“. The Docket Office returns the filing because its automated docketing software cannot index it.
A misconception people hold is that the caption can be casual. It cannot. The Commission treats the caption as the controlling description of relief, and a vague caption like “Application for Rate Relief” can limit the scope of the decision later.
Names and Addresses of All Parties (Rule 2.1(a))
This section identifies every applicant and their counsel. Rule 2.1(a) requires the full legal name, business address, telephone, and email of each applicant, plus the same for the lead attorney or representative.
To complete it, list each applicant in a numbered paragraph, followed by counsel information in a separate paragraph beginning “Correspondence and communications regarding this Application should be addressed to:”.
A specific example: Marcus Tremaine, General Counsel, Sunrise Water Company, 200 Aqua Lane, Riverside, CA 92501, (951) 555-0144, mtremaine@sunrisewater.com.
A nuance: if multiple co-applicants are filing jointly, each must appear separately and each must sign its own verification. A single verification for multiple entities is invalid.
A common mistake is using a P.O. Box as the only address. Rule 1.9 requires a physical street address for service of process, and a P.O.-only entry triggers a deficiency letter.
A misconception is that an in-house paralegal can be designated as the contact. The contact must be an attorney admitted in California or, for pro se filers, the principal officer of the entity.
Statement of Legal Name and Form of Business (Rule 2.1(a))
This subsection explains how the applicant is organized — corporation, LLC, partnership, sole proprietor, or municipal entity. It sits in the first numbered paragraph of the body.
To complete it, write one sentence stating the form of business, the state of organization, and the principal place of business.
A specific example: Aisha Okafor Telecom, LLC is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business at 1900 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
A nuance: foreign entities (organized outside California) must additionally cite their California Secretary of State qualification number and attach a current Statement of Information.
A common mistake is omitting the entity number. Without it the Energy or Communications Division cannot match your filing to your tariff record, which delays scoping memo issuance.
A misconception is that a DBA satisfies this rule. It does not. The legal name comes first, with the DBA introduced by “doing business as” only after the legal name.
Statement of Jurisdiction (Rule 2.1(b))
This is the paragraph that cites the statutes, rules, and prior decisions that give the Commission authority to grant the requested relief. It is the legal anchor of the entire application.
To complete it, list the specific Public Utilities Code sections (for example, §§451, 454, 1001), the relevant CPUC General Orders, and any controlling Commission decisions.
A specific example: This Application is brought pursuant to Public Utilities Code §§ 454 and 455, General Order 96-B, and Rule 2.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
A nuance: ratesetting cases must cite §454; CPCN cases must cite §1001; financing cases must cite §§816–830.
A common mistake is citing the wrong statute, which can lead the assigned Administrative Law Judge to issue an order to show cause why the application should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
A misconception is that a general citation to “the Public Utilities Act” is enough. The Commission expects pinpoint citations, and vague references invite procedural challenges from protestants.
Proposed Categorization, Need for Hearing, Issues, and Schedule (Rule 2.1(c))
Rule 2.1(c) requires every applicant to propose how the proceeding should be categorized — ratesetting, adjudicatory, or quasi-legislative — under Rule 7.1, and to state whether evidentiary hearings are needed.
To complete it, write one paragraph proposing a category, one stating whether hearings are needed, one listing the issues to be considered, and one proposing a schedule.
A specific example: Applicant proposes that this matter be categorized as ratesetting and that evidentiary hearings be held. Issues to be considered include the reasonableness of the proposed revenue requirement and rate design. Applicant proposes a schedule resulting in a final decision by Q4 2027.
A nuance: the wrong category can flip the ex parte rules. Ratesetting matters require ex parte reporting; quasi-legislative matters do not. Misclassification can void communications with Commissioners.
A common mistake is failing to state the schedule with quarter-level specificity, which delays the assigned Commissioner’s scoping memo under §1701.1.
A misconception is that the Commission must accept the proposed category. It does not — the assigned Commissioner sets the final category, but a well-reasoned proposal carries weight.
Statement of Facts and Relief Sought (Rule 2.1(d))
This is the substantive heart of Form A. It tells the story of why the applicant is here and exactly what it wants the Commission to order.
To complete it, draft numbered paragraphs (1, 2, 3 …) describing the operational facts, financial impact, and the precise relief requested in the prayer.
A specific example: Janet Whitfield Energy seeks authority to issue $50 million in long-term debt securities pursuant to Public Utilities Code §§ 816–830, with proceeds dedicated to grid modernization in the El Centro service territory.
A nuance: the prayer for relief should be written in numbered subparagraphs (a, b, c) so that the eventual decision can grant or deny each piece individually.
A common mistake is burying the requested relief inside narrative paragraphs. Reviewing ALJs frequently issue rulings denying relief that was not clearly demanded in a prayer.
A misconception is that the facts can be conclusory. They cannot. Each material fact must be supported by an exhibit, declaration, or prepared testimony, or it carries no evidentiary weight.
Financial Exhibits (Rule 3.2 for Rate Matters)
For rate cases, water general rate cases, and financing applications, Rule 3.2 requires a balance sheet and income statement covering the most recent calendar or fiscal year, plus a forecast for the test year.
To complete this, attach the financials as Exhibit A and reference them inside the application body.
A specific example: Sunrise Water Company’s audited balance sheet for fiscal year 2025, attached as Exhibit A, reflects total utility plant of $42.3 million and a long-term debt balance of $18.7 million.
A nuance: water utilities must use the NARUC Uniform System of Accounts. Energy utilities follow the FERC USOA. Using the wrong chart of accounts triggers a Water or Energy Division data request.
A common mistake is filing unaudited financials without explanation. The Public Advocates Office routinely protests on this ground.
A misconception is that internal management financials are sufficient. They are not for Class A water utilities or any energy utility above the §818 threshold.
Notice of Availability (Rule 2.3)
The Notice of Availability tells the public the application is on file, where to read it, and how to protest. It must accompany every Form A.
To complete it, draft a one-page notice listing the proceeding caption, the date filed, the filer’s website where the full application is posted, and the 30-day protest deadline under Rule 2.6.
A specific example: Notice is hereby given that on March 14, 2027, Sunrise Water Company filed Application 27-03-XXX. Protests must be filed within 30 days at https://apps.cpuc.ca.gov/efile.
A nuance: for general rate cases, the NOA must be mailed to every affected ratepayer, not just posted online. Class A water companies have specific Public Utilities Code §454 mailing duties.
A common mistake is using the wrong date — the NOA must reflect the actual filed-stamp date, not the drafted date.
A misconception is that an email blast satisfies the mailing requirement. It does not for residential customers without prior e-billing consent.
Verification (Rule 1.11)
Every Form A must end with a verification signed under penalty of perjury by an officer of the applicant. Without it, the filing is a legal nullity.
To complete it, paste the standard Rule 1.11 language, fill in the officer’s name and title, sign, and date.
A specific example: I, Marcus Tremaine, am General Counsel of Sunrise Water Company. I have read the foregoing Application and know its contents. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, which I believe to be true. Executed on March 14, 2027, at Riverside, California.
A nuance: the verification must be signed by a corporate officer, not by counsel, unless counsel can demonstrate personal knowledge of the facts.
A common mistake is using an electronic signature image without the typed conformed signature line “/s/ Marcus Tremaine” required by Rule 1.8.
A misconception is that one verification covers all attachments. Each declaration and witness verification stands on its own.
Service List and Certificate of Service (Rule 1.10)
The application is not complete until it has been served on every required party. The certificate of service goes at the very end.
To complete it, list each party served, the method of service, and the date.
A specific example: I served the foregoing Application on the parties listed on the attached service list by electronic mail to those who consented to electronic service and by U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, to all others, on March 14, 2027.
A nuance: for new proceedings, the initial service list comes from the Commission’s service list lookup once a proceeding number is assigned. Before that, you serve the statutorily required parties such as the Public Advocates Office.
A common mistake is omitting the Public Advocates Office of the CPUC from the service list. It is a mandatory party in nearly every ratesetting matter.
A misconception is that posting on the EFS satisfies service. EFS posting is filing, not service. Service is a separate obligation under Rule 1.10.
Three Filled-Out Examples Using Real Scenarios
The three scenarios below show how three different filers complete the same Form A structure. Each table has exactly two columns and at least eight rows, mirroring the major sections of the application.
Scenario 1: Sunrise Water Company General Rate Case
Marcus Tremaine, General Counsel of a Class A water utility in Riverside, files a triennial general rate case seeking a $1.25 million revenue increase.
| Form Section | What Marcus Enters |
|---|---|
| Caption | Application of Sunrise Water Company (U-123-W) for Authority to Increase Rates by $1,250,000 in Test Year 2027 |
| Parties (Rule 2.1(a)) | Sunrise Water Company; counsel: Marcus Tremaine, 200 Aqua Lane, Riverside, CA 92501 |
| Form of Business | California corporation in good standing, Entity No. C1234567 |
| Jurisdiction (Rule 2.1(b)) | Pub. Util. Code §§ 454, 455; G.O. 96-B; Rule 2.1 |
| Categorization (Rule 2.1(c)) | Ratesetting; evidentiary hearings requested; final decision by Q4 2027 |
| Relief Sought (Rule 2.1(d)) | Authority to increase water rates by $1.25 million, or 6.4%, effective January 1, 2027 |
| Financial Exhibits (Rule 3.2) | Exhibit A: audited 2025 financials; Exhibit B: 2027 test-year forecast |
| Notice of Availability | Mailed to all 12,400 ratepayers; published in The Press-Enterprise |
| Verification | Signed by Marcus Tremaine, General Counsel, March 14, 2027, Riverside, CA |
| Filing Fee | $75 paid via EFS credit card |
Scenario 2: Aisha Okafor Telecom CPCN Application
Aisha Okafor’s startup CLEC seeks a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide competitive local exchange service in the Bay Area.
| Form Section | What Aisha Enters |
|---|---|
| Caption | Application of Aisha Okafor Telecom, LLC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity |
| Parties (Rule 2.1(a)) | Aisha Okafor Telecom, LLC, 1900 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 |
| Form of Business | California LLC, Entity No. 202312345678 |
| Jurisdiction (Rule 2.1(b)) | Pub. Util. Code §§ 1001, 1013; D.13-05-035 |
| Categorization (Rule 2.1(c)) | Ratesetting; no evidentiary hearings needed; resolution within 180 days |
| Relief Sought (Rule 2.1(d)) | CPCN to provide resold and facilities-based local exchange service statewide |
| Financial Exhibits | $100,000 minimum cash demonstration under D.13-05-035 |
| Technical Showing | Description of network architecture and interconnection plan |
| Notice of Availability | Posted to applicant website and served on incumbent LECs |
| Verification | Signed by Aisha Okafor, Managing Member, April 2, 2027, San Francisco |
Scenario 3: Janet Whitfield Energy Financing Application
Janet Whitfield, CFO of a small investor-owned energy utility, files for authority to issue $50 million in long-term debt under §§ 816–830.
| Form Section | What Janet Enters |
|---|---|
| Caption | Application of Whitfield Energy Corporation (U-456-E) for Authority to Issue Long-Term Debt |
| Parties (Rule 2.1(a)) | Whitfield Energy Corporation; counsel listed at El Centro, CA |
| Form of Business | California corporation, Entity No. C7654321 |
| Jurisdiction (Rule 2.1(b)) | Pub. Util. Code §§ 816, 818, 823 |
| Categorization (Rule 2.1(c)) | Ratesetting; no hearings needed; expedited decision requested |
| Relief Sought (Rule 2.1(d)) | Authority to issue $50 million in senior unsecured notes maturing 2037 |
| Financial Exhibits | Exhibit A: pro forma capital structure; Exhibit B: use-of-proceeds schedule |
| Notice of Availability | Served on Public Advocates Office and TURN |
| Verification | Signed by Janet Whitfield, CFO, May 6, 2027, El Centro, CA |
| Filing Fee | $75 base fee plus securities fee under §1904.1 |
How to File the Completed Form
The CPUC offers three filing channels. Choose the one that matches your filing type and any waivers you hold.
Electronic filing through EFS. This is the default channel. Visit the E-Filing portal, log in to your registered account, upload a single PDF that combines the application, exhibits, NOA, verification, and certificate of service, then pay the $75 filing fee by credit card or ACH. Processing takes 2–5 business days, after which the Docket Office issues a stamped copy and a proceeding number. Save the EFS confirmation email as your proof of filing.
Hand delivery. Permitted only with a Rule 1.13(d) hardship waiver or for confidential filings. Deliver six paper copies plus a USB drive to the Docket Office, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Commission business days. Pay the $75 fee by check made payable to “California Public Utilities Commission.” Processing takes 5–10 business days, and your proof of filing is the file-stamped front page.
U.S. Mail. Also waiver-only. Mail six paper copies plus a USB drive to the same Van Ness address with a check for $75. Processing takes 10–15 business days, and your proof of filing is the certified mail return receipt plus the eventual file-stamped copy. The Commission does not consider mail filings effective until the Docket Office logs them, so anticipate a delay against any statutory deadline.
For all channels, retain duplicates of the proof of filing for at least three years, because the Public Advocates Office and intervenors may challenge timeliness years later.
What Happens After You File
After the Docket Office accepts the application, it assigns a proceeding number in the format A.27-MM-XXX and posts the matter to the Daily Calendar. The Daily Calendar publication starts the 30-day protest window under Rule 2.6, and any party with standing may file a protest or response.
Within roughly 60 days, the Chief Administrative Law Judge assigns the matter to an Administrative Law Judge, and the assigned Commissioner issues a scoping memo under §1701.1 that confirms categorization, identifies issues, and sets the schedule. Ratesetting matters carry an 18-month statutory deadline; adjudicatory matters carry 12 months.
If hearings are set, the parties exchange testimony, hold a prehearing conference, conduct evidentiary hearings, file briefs, and wait for a Proposed Decision from the ALJ. The full Commission then votes on the Proposed Decision at a public meeting, typically 30 days after issuance, and the resulting decision becomes effective immediately unless rehearing is granted under §1731.
A nuance is that even uncontested applications take 6–9 months because of the mandatory comment periods. Filers who expect quick approvals are routinely surprised.
Mistakes to Avoid When Filling Out the Form
The following errors cause the bulk of CPUC Form A rejections and procedural setbacks. Each is paired with its consequence.
- Omitting the verification. The Docket Office rejects the filing as a legal nullity.
- Wrong proposed categorization. The assigned Commissioner reissues the scoping memo and resets the schedule, costing weeks.
- Missing Notice of Availability. Protests can be reopened later for due-process violations.
- Skipping the §1904.1 fee. EFS will not accept the upload and your timestamp does not lock in.
- Failing to serve the Public Advocates Office. Triggers a motion to strike service and a redo.
- Generic jurisdictional citation. Invites a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- Unaudited financial exhibits. Public Advocates files a protest, delaying the case.
- Using a P.O. Box as the only address. Deficiency letter under Rule 1.9.
- Failing to redline tariff sheets. Energy or Water Division returns the tariff package.
- Missing CEQA disclosure for physical projects. Triggers a separate environmental review proceeding that adds 6–12 months.
- Caption that does not match the body’s prayer. ALJ may limit the scope of relief granted.
Do’s and Don’ts
The following points capture habits that experienced CPUC practitioners follow on every Form A.
- Do cite pinpoint Public Utilities Code sections, because the assigned ALJ relies on them to draft the proposed decision.
- Do propose a realistic schedule, because aggressive timelines invite skepticism from intervenors.
- Do serve the Public Advocates Office on day one, because it is a mandatory party in ratesetting matters.
- Do file via EFS rather than mail, because the timestamp protects statutory deadlines.
- Do prepare prepared testimony concurrently, because Rule 3.1 requires it for ratesetting cases.
-
Do keep duplicate proof of filing, because intervenors can challenge timeliness later.
-
Don’t combine multiple unrelated reliefs in one application, because the Commission may sever them.
- Don’t file unaudited financials without explanation, because protests follow.
- Don’t rely on counsel verification, because Rule 1.11 demands an officer with personal knowledge.
- Don’t post the application by email to an ALJ, because it is not a valid filing channel.
- Don’t treat the NOA as optional, because due-process challenges can void the eventual decision.
- Don’t ignore the Daily Calendar publication date, because the 30-day protest clock starts there.
Pros and Cons of Filing on Your Own vs. With Help
Whether you file pro se or with experienced regulatory counsel changes both cost and risk. The following points come up most often.
Pros of filing pro se: – Lower out-of-pocket cost, because counsel rates run $500–$1,200 per hour. – Direct control over messaging, which matters for small carriers. – Faster internal coordination because you skip outside counsel review cycles. – Preserves attorney-client work product internally. – Builds in-house expertise for future filings.
Cons of filing pro se: – High risk of Docket Office rejection on first submission. – Procedural traps in Rule 1.11 verification and Rule 2.6 protest practice. – Difficulty navigating ex parte rules under Rule 8. – Risk of mishandling confidential materials under General Order 66-D. – Lower credibility with intervenors, who may exploit unfamiliarity.
Pros of filing with counsel: – Familiarity with assigned ALJs and Commissioners. – Higher first-pass acceptance rate. – Coordinated discovery and testimony strategy. – Reliable handling of confidentiality and ex parte rules. – Faster path through prehearing conferences and motions.
Cons of filing with counsel: – Significant legal fees that can exceed $250,000 in contested rate cases. – Slower internal turnaround on edits. – Reduced direct contact between client officers and the ALJ. – Some duplication with in-house legal teams. – Rate consultants and economists are usually a separate bill.
Pleading Format vs. Fillable Form Comparison
Filers often confuse Form A with a typical agency PDF. The differences matter for drafting time and rejection risk.
| CPUC Form A (Pleading Format) | Typical Fillable Agency Form |
|---|---|
| Drafted on pleading paper with line numbers | Pre-printed PDF with boxes |
| Signed under Rule 1.11 verification | Signed in a single signature block |
| Filed via EFS as a single PDF bundle | Often filed via web form |
| Requires concurrent service on parties | Usually filed only with the agency |
| Requires Notice of Availability | No public notice in most agency forms |
| Initiates a contested adjudication | Typically a ministerial filing |
FAQs
Is CPUC Form A a downloadable PDF?
No. Form A is a pleading drafted by the filer using the format set by Rule 2.1. The CPUC publishes the rules, not a fillable PDF, on its Rules of Practice page.
Do I write my legal name or my DBA in the caption?
Yes, write the legal name first. The DBA may follow after “doing business as,” but the legal entity name controls the caption under Rule 2.1(a).
Is the $75 filing fee waivable for low-income filers?
Yes, in narrow cases. The Commission can waive the Pub. Util. Code §1904.1 fee on a Rule 1.13(d) hardship showing.
Do I need a California Bar–admitted attorney?
No for individuals and small entities filing pro se. Yes for corporations in contested matters under California’s longstanding rule against corporate self-representation.
Should the verification be signed by counsel?
No. Rule 1.11 requires an officer with personal knowledge. A counsel verification is rejected unless counsel can show personal knowledge.
Do I list a P.O. Box in the address field?
No. Rule 1.9 requires a physical street address, though a P.O. Box may be added as a secondary mailing line.
Is the Notice of Availability mandatory for every application?
Yes. Rule 2.3 requires it for every Form A. Skipping it is the second most common rejection reason after missing verifications.
Do I serve the Public Advocates Office before a proceeding number issues?
Yes. The Public Advocates Office is a mandatory party in ratesetting and many CPCN matters and must be served at filing.
Can I file by email to the Docket Office?
No. Email submissions are not accepted. Use the EFS portal or, with a waiver, hand delivery.
Should I propose ratesetting or quasi-legislative categorization?
Yes, you must propose one. The right pick depends on whether the matter affects rates of a specific utility (ratesetting) or sets policy industry-wide (quasi-legislative) under Rule 7.1.
Do I attach prepared testimony with the application?
Yes for ratesetting matters under Rule 3.1. Filing testimony later is permitted only by ALJ ruling.
Is there a page limit on Form A?
No firm page limit, but the application must be concise. Excessively long applications draw motions to strike from intervenors.
Do I redline tariff sheets in the application body or as an exhibit?
Yes, attach them as an exhibit. Both clean and redlined versions are required by General Order 96-B.
Should the certificate of service list every served party individually?
Yes. Rule 1.10 requires party-by-party listing with method and date of service. A blanket “all parties” entry is invalid.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CM-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-020 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DISC-030 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California CPUC Form 1 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California CPUC TCR Application (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CIV-010 (w/Examples) + FAQs